Does BS give IT the opportunity to start this season

[mmmmm]

IT is essentially a starter because he plays starting minutes. The only difference is that he comes off the bench in the 1st quarter. He's in at the end of the games, which matters more than anything.

Well, actually, it's not quite moot.

In a conventional rotation, a starter will get about 32 minutes based on a sub pattern of:

~8 minutes to start the 1st
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 2nd
rest for the half-time break
~8 minutes to start the 3rd
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 4th

This gets a starter 32 minutes of floor time and to the stretch run in the 4th with plenty of rest.

For a bench player to get in the same number of minutes, he has to compress his playing time into a shorter span of the game.   He'll either have to play for longer runs or get shorter rest.   By the end of the 4th comes around, a bench player getting the same total minutes will be less rested than a starter.

In reality, Isaiah played just 26 mpg for us because of this.   That's not really 'starters minutes'.

Only 1 celtic had 32 minutes a game last year.  Jeff Green.  Rondo at 31.8 was 2nd.   Bradley was 3rd at 31.5.

Full-season averages are mis-leading because the starting lineup changed.   And the comparison point is "about" 32 minutes, not some exact value.

For the season, Marcus Smart averaged just 27 mpg.  After the All-Star break, Marcus averaged 30.2 mpg.

For the season, Evan Turner averaged just 27.6 mpg.  After the AS break, he averaged 30.7 mpg.

Avery's post-AS minutes went up slightly to 32.9 mpg.

On this roster, it will be tough for even starters to get 32+, of course, because our sub rotation will likely be 10 players deep at times.    But the main starters will likely get at least 30.

Even though the names changed, Brad gave 30+ mpg to three starters all season.  In the Fall, it was Rondo, Avery & Green, all getting 30+ minutes.  In the Spring it was Smart, Avery & Evan.

[Moranis]

IT is essentially a starter because he plays starting minutes. The only difference is that he comes off the bench in the 1st quarter. He's in at the end of the games, which matters more than anything.

Well, actually, it's not quite moot.

In a conventional rotation, a starter will get about 32 minutes based on a sub pattern of:

~8 minutes to start the 1st
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 2nd
rest for the half-time break
~8 minutes to start the 3rd
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 4th

This gets a starter 32 minutes of floor time and to the stretch run in the 4th with plenty of rest.

For a bench player to get in the same number of minutes, he has to compress his playing time into a shorter span of the game.   He'll either have to play for longer runs or get shorter rest.   By the end of the 4th comes around, a bench player getting the same total minutes will be less rested than a starter.

In reality, Isaiah played just 26 mpg for us because of this.   That's not really 'starters minutes'.

Only 1 celtic had 32 minutes a game last year.  Jeff Green.  Rondo at 31.8 was 2nd.   Bradley was 3rd at 31.5.

Full-season averages are mis-leading because the starting lineup changed.   And the comparison point is "about" 32 minutes, not some exact value.

For the season, Marcus Smart averaged just 27 mpg.  After the All-Star break, Marcus averaged 30.2 mpg.

For the season, Evan Turner averaged just 27.6 mpg.  After the AS break, he averaged 30.7 mpg.

Avery's post-AS minutes went up slightly to 32.9 mpg.

On this roster, it will be tough for even starters to get 32+, of course, because our sub rotation will likely be 10 players deep at times.    But the main starters will likely get at least 30.

Even though the names changed, Brad gave 30+ mpg to three starters all season.  In the Fall, it was Rondo, Avery & Green, all getting 30+ minutes.  In the Spring it was Smart, Avery & Evan.

Thomas had the 5th most minutes per game of the Celtics that finished the year though.  You said well he only played 26 minutes, so he is a bench player, but conveniently ignored that fact. 

[mmmmm]

IT is essentially a starter because he plays starting minutes. The only difference is that he comes off the bench in the 1st quarter. He's in at the end of the games, which matters more than anything.

Well, actually, it's not quite moot.

In a conventional rotation, a starter will get about 32 minutes based on a sub pattern of:

~8 minutes to start the 1st
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 2nd
rest for the half-time break
~8 minutes to start the 3rd
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 4th

This gets a starter 32 minutes of floor time and to the stretch run in the 4th with plenty of rest.

For a bench player to get in the same number of minutes, he has to compress his playing time into a shorter span of the game.   He'll either have to play for longer runs or get shorter rest.   By the end of the 4th comes around, a bench player getting the same total minutes will be less rested than a starter.

In reality, Isaiah played just 26 mpg for us because of this.   That's not really 'starters minutes'.

Only 1 celtic had 32 minutes a game last year.  Jeff Green.  Rondo at 31.8 was 2nd.   Bradley was 3rd at 31.5.

Full-season averages are mis-leading because the starting lineup changed.   And the comparison point is "about" 32 minutes, not some exact value.

For the season, Marcus Smart averaged just 27 mpg.  After the All-Star break, Marcus averaged 30.2 mpg.

For the season, Evan Turner averaged just 27.6 mpg.  After the AS break, he averaged 30.7 mpg.

Avery's post-AS minutes went up slightly to 32.9 mpg.

On this roster, it will be tough for even starters to get 32+, of course, because our sub rotation will likely be 10 players deep at times.    But the main starters will likely get at least 30.

Even though the names changed, Brad gave 30+ mpg to three starters all season.  In the Fall, it was Rondo, Avery & Green, all getting 30+ minutes.  In the Spring it was Smart, Avery & Evan.

Thomas had the 5th most minutes per game of the Celtics that finished the year though.  You said well he only played 26 minutes, so he is a bench player, but conveniently ignored that fact.

In what way did I ignore "that fact"?  How is it even relevant to anything?

I didn't say "well he only played 16 minutes, so he is a bench player".

I said he was a bench player, and that is why he only played 26 mpg.

None of the guys who averaged 30+ minutes during the Fall or during the Spring did so off of the bench.

Four of the starters during the Spring (AB, MS, ET & BB) all averaged more minutes than Isaiah during that span.

If you think it's somehow relevant that, yes, one starter (Zeller) managed to average fewer minutes than Isaiah, I don't see why.   Zeller's relative lack of minutes is a whole separate topic of discussion.

[Moranis]

IT is essentially a starter because he plays starting minutes. The only difference is that he comes off the bench in the 1st quarter. He's in at the end of the games, which matters more than anything.

Well, actually, it's not quite moot.

In a conventional rotation, a starter will get about 32 minutes based on a sub pattern of:

~8 minutes to start the 1st
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 2nd
rest for the half-time break
~8 minutes to start the 3rd
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 4th

This gets a starter 32 minutes of floor time and to the stretch run in the 4th with plenty of rest.

For a bench player to get in the same number of minutes, he has to compress his playing time into a shorter span of the game.   He'll either have to play for longer runs or get shorter rest.   By the end of the 4th comes around, a bench player getting the same total minutes will be less rested than a starter.

In reality, Isaiah played just 26 mpg for us because of this.   That's not really 'starters minutes'.

Only 1 celtic had 32 minutes a game last year.  Jeff Green.  Rondo at 31.8 was 2nd.   Bradley was 3rd at 31.5.

Full-season averages are mis-leading because the starting lineup changed.   And the comparison point is "about" 32 minutes, not some exact value.

For the season, Marcus Smart averaged just 27 mpg.  After the All-Star break, Marcus averaged 30.2 mpg.

For the season, Evan Turner averaged just 27.6 mpg.  After the AS break, he averaged 30.7 mpg.

Avery's post-AS minutes went up slightly to 32.9 mpg.

On this roster, it will be tough for even starters to get 32+, of course, because our sub rotation will likely be 10 players deep at times.    But the main starters will likely get at least 30.

Even though the names changed, Brad gave 30+ mpg to three starters all season.  In the Fall, it was Rondo, Avery & Green, all getting 30+ minutes.  In the Spring it was Smart, Avery & Evan.

Thomas had the 5th most minutes per game of the Celtics that finished the year though.  You said well he only played 26 minutes, so he is a bench player, but conveniently ignored that fact.

In what way did I ignore "that fact"?  How is it even relevant to anything?

I didn't say "well he only played 16 minutes, so he is a bench player".

I said he was a bench player, and that is why he only played 26 mpg.

None of the guys who averaged 30+ minutes during the Fall or during the Spring did so off of the bench.

Four of the starters during the Spring (AB, MS, ET & BB) all averaged more minutes than Isaiah during that span.

If you think it's somehow relevant that, yes, one starter (Zeller) managed to average fewer minutes than Isaiah, I don't see why.   Zeller's relative lack of minutes is a whole separate topic of discussion.

you claimed he didn't play 'starter minutes' when he was right in the general range of the starters though. 

Also, Thomas had the 2nd most minutes in the playoffs behind only Bradley.

[mmmmm]

IT is essentially a starter because he plays starting minutes. The only difference is that he comes off the bench in the 1st quarter. He's in at the end of the games, which matters more than anything.

Well, actually, it's not quite moot.

In a conventional rotation, a starter will get about 32 minutes based on a sub pattern of:

~8 minutes to start the 1st
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 2nd
rest for the half-time break
~8 minutes to start the 3rd
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 4th

This gets a starter 32 minutes of floor time and to the stretch run in the 4th with plenty of rest.

For a bench player to get in the same number of minutes, he has to compress his playing time into a shorter span of the game.   He'll either have to play for longer runs or get shorter rest.   By the end of the 4th comes around, a bench player getting the same total minutes will be less rested than a starter.

In reality, Isaiah played just 26 mpg for us because of this.   That's not really 'starters minutes'.

Only 1 celtic had 32 minutes a game last year.  Jeff Green.  Rondo at 31.8 was 2nd.   Bradley was 3rd at 31.5.

Full-season averages are mis-leading because the starting lineup changed.   And the comparison point is "about" 32 minutes, not some exact value.

For the season, Marcus Smart averaged just 27 mpg.  After the All-Star break, Marcus averaged 30.2 mpg.

For the season, Evan Turner averaged just 27.6 mpg.  After the AS break, he averaged 30.7 mpg.

Avery's post-AS minutes went up slightly to 32.9 mpg.

On this roster, it will be tough for even starters to get 32+, of course, because our sub rotation will likely be 10 players deep at times.    But the main starters will likely get at least 30.

Even though the names changed, Brad gave 30+ mpg to three starters all season.  In the Fall, it was Rondo, Avery & Green, all getting 30+ minutes.  In the Spring it was Smart, Avery & Evan.

Thomas had the 5th most minutes per game of the Celtics that finished the year though.  You said well he only played 26 minutes, so he is a bench player, but conveniently ignored that fact.

In what way did I ignore "that fact"?  How is it even relevant to anything?

I didn't say "well he only played 16 minutes, so he is a bench player".

I said he was a bench player, and that is why he only played 26 mpg.

None of the guys who averaged 30+ minutes during the Fall or during the Spring did so off of the bench.

Four of the starters during the Spring (AB, MS, ET & BB) all averaged more minutes than Isaiah during that span.

If you think it's somehow relevant that, yes, one starter (Zeller) managed to average fewer minutes than Isaiah, I don't see why.   Zeller's relative lack of minutes is a whole separate topic of discussion.

you claimed he didn't play 'starter minutes' when he was right in the general range of the starters though. 

Also, Thomas had the 2nd most minutes in the playoffs behind only Bradley.

Other than Zeller's, Isaiah's minutes were less than all the other 'starters'.

On a conventional lineup, 26 mpg would not be 'starter minutes'.   Of the 96 players who started at least 60 games last year, 70 played 30+.    The median is almost exactly at the 32 mpg point I described as the nominal starter's minutes.

Yes, Thomas had the 2nd most minutes in the playoffs, as Brad got desperate enough and realized he had to lean more and more on him.  Unfortunately, Brad could not get past his mental block / loyalty to his starters / prejudice against short players /whatever it is to actually _start_ Isaiah.

This was very apparent in the final game 4 when he went to IT for some 36 minutes.

I never said it wasn't possible for a bench player to _get_ large minutes.   If you paid attention to my earlier post on this topic, the point was simply that, for a bench player to get those large amounts of minutes, he has to play either extended runs or get truncated rest or both in order to do so.   And that is not ideal because it puts that player at a rest disadvantage at the end of the game compared to opposing starters.

If you intend to play a player 30+ minutes, you should start him.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

IT is essentially a starter because he plays starting minutes. The only difference is that he comes off the bench in the 1st quarter. He's in at the end of the games, which matters more than anything.

Well, actually, it's not quite moot.

In a conventional rotation, a starter will get about 32 minutes based on a sub pattern of:

~8 minutes to start the 1st
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 2nd
rest for the half-time break
~8 minutes to start the 3rd
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 4th

This gets a starter 32 minutes of floor time and to the stretch run in the 4th with plenty of rest.

For a bench player to get in the same number of minutes, he has to compress his playing time into a shorter span of the game.   He'll either have to play for longer runs or get shorter rest.   By the end of the 4th comes around, a bench player getting the same total minutes will be less rested than a starter.

In reality, Isaiah played just 26 mpg for us because of this.   That's not really 'starters minutes'.

Only 1 celtic had 32 minutes a game last year.  Jeff Green.  Rondo at 31.8 was 2nd.   Bradley was 3rd at 31.5.

Full-season averages are mis-leading because the starting lineup changed.   And the comparison point is "about" 32 minutes, not some exact value.

For the season, Marcus Smart averaged just 27 mpg.  After the All-Star break, Marcus averaged 30.2 mpg.

For the season, Evan Turner averaged just 27.6 mpg.  After the AS break, he averaged 30.7 mpg.

Avery's post-AS minutes went up slightly to 32.9 mpg.

On this roster, it will be tough for even starters to get 32+, of course, because our sub rotation will likely be 10 players deep at times.    But the main starters will likely get at least 30.

Even though the names changed, Brad gave 30+ mpg to three starters all season.  In the Fall, it was Rondo, Avery & Green, all getting 30+ minutes.  In the Spring it was Smart, Avery & Evan.

Thomas had the 5th most minutes per game of the Celtics that finished the year though.  You said well he only played 26 minutes, so he is a bench player, but conveniently ignored that fact.

In what way did I ignore "that fact"?  How is it even relevant to anything?

I didn't say "well he only played 16 minutes, so he is a bench player".

I said he was a bench player, and that is why he only played 26 mpg.

None of the guys who averaged 30+ minutes during the Fall or during the Spring did so off of the bench.

Four of the starters during the Spring (AB, MS, ET & BB) all averaged more minutes than Isaiah during that span.

If you think it's somehow relevant that, yes, one starter (Zeller) managed to average fewer minutes than Isaiah, I don't see why.   Zeller's relative lack of minutes is a whole separate topic of discussion.

you claimed he didn't play 'starter minutes' when he was right in the general range of the starters though. 

Also, Thomas had the 2nd most minutes in the playoffs behind only Bradley.

Other than Zeller's, Isaiah's minutes were less than all the other 'starters'.

On a conventional lineup, 26 mpg would not be 'starter minutes'.   Of the 96 players who started at least 60 games last year, 70 played 30+.    The median is almost exactly at the 32 mpg point I described as the nominal starter's minutes.

Yes, Thomas had the 2nd most minutes in the playoffs, as Brad got desperate enough and realized he had to lean more and more on him.  Unfortunately, Brad could not get past his mental block / loyalty to his starters / prejudice against short players /whatever it is to actually _start_ Isaiah.

This was very apparent in the final game 4 when he went to IT for some 36 minutes.

I never said it wasn't possible for a bench player to _get_ large minutes.   If you paid attention to my earlier post on this topic, the point was simply that, for a bench player to get those large amounts of minutes, he has to play either extended runs or get truncated rest or both in order to do so.   And that is not ideal because it puts that player at a rest disadvantage at the end of the game compared to opposing starters.

If you intend to play a player 30+ minutes, you should start him.

Playing IT4 36 minutes in game 4 produced the same result, an 8pt loss.

[mmmmm]

IT is essentially a starter because he plays starting minutes. The only difference is that he comes off the bench in the 1st quarter. He's in at the end of the games, which matters more than anything.

Well, actually, it's not quite moot.

In a conventional rotation, a starter will get about 32 minutes based on a sub pattern of:

~8 minutes to start the 1st
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 2nd
rest for the half-time break
~8 minutes to start the 3rd
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 4th

This gets a starter 32 minutes of floor time and to the stretch run in the 4th with plenty of rest.

For a bench player to get in the same number of minutes, he has to compress his playing time into a shorter span of the game.   He'll either have to play for longer runs or get shorter rest.   By the end of the 4th comes around, a bench player getting the same total minutes will be less rested than a starter.

In reality, Isaiah played just 26 mpg for us because of this.   That's not really 'starters minutes'.

Only 1 celtic had 32 minutes a game last year.  Jeff Green.  Rondo at 31.8 was 2nd.   Bradley was 3rd at 31.5.

Full-season averages are mis-leading because the starting lineup changed.   And the comparison point is "about" 32 minutes, not some exact value.

For the season, Marcus Smart averaged just 27 mpg.  After the All-Star break, Marcus averaged 30.2 mpg.

For the season, Evan Turner averaged just 27.6 mpg.  After the AS break, he averaged 30.7 mpg.

Avery's post-AS minutes went up slightly to 32.9 mpg.

On this roster, it will be tough for even starters to get 32+, of course, because our sub rotation will likely be 10 players deep at times.    But the main starters will likely get at least 30.

Even though the names changed, Brad gave 30+ mpg to three starters all season.  In the Fall, it was Rondo, Avery & Green, all getting 30+ minutes.  In the Spring it was Smart, Avery & Evan.

Thomas had the 5th most minutes per game of the Celtics that finished the year though.  You said well he only played 26 minutes, so he is a bench player, but conveniently ignored that fact.

In what way did I ignore "that fact"?  How is it even relevant to anything?

I didn't say "well he only played 16 minutes, so he is a bench player".

I said he was a bench player, and that is why he only played 26 mpg.

None of the guys who averaged 30+ minutes during the Fall or during the Spring did so off of the bench.

Four of the starters during the Spring (AB, MS, ET & BB) all averaged more minutes than Isaiah during that span.

If you think it's somehow relevant that, yes, one starter (Zeller) managed to average fewer minutes than Isaiah, I don't see why.   Zeller's relative lack of minutes is a whole separate topic of discussion.

you claimed he didn't play 'starter minutes' when he was right in the general range of the starters though. 

Also, Thomas had the 2nd most minutes in the playoffs behind only Bradley.

Other than Zeller's, Isaiah's minutes were less than all the other 'starters'.

On a conventional lineup, 26 mpg would not be 'starter minutes'.   Of the 96 players who started at least 60 games last year, 70 played 30+.    The median is almost exactly at the 32 mpg point I described as the nominal starter's minutes.

Yes, Thomas had the 2nd most minutes in the playoffs, as Brad got desperate enough and realized he had to lean more and more on him.  Unfortunately, Brad could not get past his mental block / loyalty to his starters / prejudice against short players /whatever it is to actually _start_ Isaiah.

This was very apparent in the final game 4 when he went to IT for some 36 minutes.

I never said it wasn't possible for a bench player to _get_ large minutes.   If you paid attention to my earlier post on this topic, the point was simply that, for a bench player to get those large amounts of minutes, he has to play either extended runs or get truncated rest or both in order to do so.   And that is not ideal because it puts that player at a rest disadvantage at the end of the game compared to opposing starters.

If you intend to play a player 30+ minutes, you should start him.

Playing IT4 36 minutes in game 4 produced the same result, an 8pt loss.

During those 36 minutes, the Celtics outscored the Cavs by 4 points.  They were outscored BY the Cavs by 12 points in the 12 minutes that Isaiah was on the bench.

[fantankerous]

IT is essentially a starter because he plays starting minutes. The only difference is that he comes off the bench in the 1st quarter. He's in at the end of the games, which matters more than anything.

Well, actually, it's not quite moot.

In a conventional rotation, a starter will get about 32 minutes based on a sub pattern of:

~8 minutes to start the 1st
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 2nd
rest for the half-time break
~8 minutes to start the 3rd
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 4th

This gets a starter 32 minutes of floor time and to the stretch run in the 4th with plenty of rest.

For a bench player to get in the same number of minutes, he has to compress his playing time into a shorter span of the game.   He'll either have to play for longer runs or get shorter rest.   By the end of the 4th comes around, a bench player getting the same total minutes will be less rested than a starter.

In reality, Isaiah played just 26 mpg for us because of this.   That's not really 'starters minutes'.

Only 1 celtic had 32 minutes a game last year.  Jeff Green.  Rondo at 31.8 was 2nd.   Bradley was 3rd at 31.5.

Full-season averages are mis-leading because the starting lineup changed.   And the comparison point is "about" 32 minutes, not some exact value.

For the season, Marcus Smart averaged just 27 mpg.  After the All-Star break, Marcus averaged 30.2 mpg.

For the season, Evan Turner averaged just 27.6 mpg.  After the AS break, he averaged 30.7 mpg.

Avery's post-AS minutes went up slightly to 32.9 mpg.

On this roster, it will be tough for even starters to get 32+, of course, because our sub rotation will likely be 10 players deep at times.    But the main starters will likely get at least 30.

Even though the names changed, Brad gave 30+ mpg to three starters all season.  In the Fall, it was Rondo, Avery & Green, all getting 30+ minutes.  In the Spring it was Smart, Avery & Evan.

Thomas had the 5th most minutes per game of the Celtics that finished the year though.  You said well he only played 26 minutes, so he is a bench player, but conveniently ignored that fact.

In what way did I ignore "that fact"?  How is it even relevant to anything?

I didn't say "well he only played 16 minutes, so he is a bench player".

I said he was a bench player, and that is why he only played 26 mpg.

None of the guys who averaged 30+ minutes during the Fall or during the Spring did so off of the bench.

Four of the starters during the Spring (AB, MS, ET & BB) all averaged more minutes than Isaiah during that span.

If you think it's somehow relevant that, yes, one starter (Zeller) managed to average fewer minutes than Isaiah, I don't see why.   Zeller's relative lack of minutes is a whole separate topic of discussion.

Is the 26 minutes at all related to being a bench player though?  Or is it that his usage rate was so high that he couldn't play more minutes at such a productive level?  I.e.  are all minutes the same?

[mmmmm]

IT is essentially a starter because he plays starting minutes. The only difference is that he comes off the bench in the 1st quarter. He's in at the end of the games, which matters more than anything.

Well, actually, it's not quite moot.

In a conventional rotation, a starter will get about 32 minutes based on a sub pattern of:

~8 minutes to start the 1st
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 2nd
rest for the half-time break
~8 minutes to start the 3rd
rest 8 minutes plus the period break
~8 minutes to end the 4th

This gets a starter 32 minutes of floor time and to the stretch run in the 4th with plenty of rest.

For a bench player to get in the same number of minutes, he has to compress his playing time into a shorter span of the game.   He'll either have to play for longer runs or get shorter rest.   By the end of the 4th comes around, a bench player getting the same total minutes will be less rested than a starter.

In reality, Isaiah played just 26 mpg for us because of this.   That's not really 'starters minutes'.

Only 1 celtic had 32 minutes a game last year.  Jeff Green.  Rondo at 31.8 was 2nd.   Bradley was 3rd at 31.5.

Full-season averages are mis-leading because the starting lineup changed.   And the comparison point is "about" 32 minutes, not some exact value.

For the season, Marcus Smart averaged just 27 mpg.  After the All-Star break, Marcus averaged 30.2 mpg.

For the season, Evan Turner averaged just 27.6 mpg.  After the AS break, he averaged 30.7 mpg.

Avery's post-AS minutes went up slightly to 32.9 mpg.

On this roster, it will be tough for even starters to get 32+, of course, because our sub rotation will likely be 10 players deep at times.    But the main starters will likely get at least 30.

Even though the names changed, Brad gave 30+ mpg to three starters all season.  In the Fall, it was Rondo, Avery & Green, all getting 30+ minutes.  In the Spring it was Smart, Avery & Evan.

Thomas had the 5th most minutes per game of the Celtics that finished the year though.  You said well he only played 26 minutes, so he is a bench player, but conveniently ignored that fact.

In what way did I ignore "that fact"?  How is it even relevant to anything?

I didn't say "well he only played 16 minutes, so he is a bench player".

I said he was a bench player, and that is why he only played 26 mpg.

None of the guys who averaged 30+ minutes during the Fall or during the Spring did so off of the bench.

Four of the starters during the Spring (AB, MS, ET & BB) all averaged more minutes than Isaiah during that span.

If you think it's somehow relevant that, yes, one starter (Zeller) managed to average fewer minutes than Isaiah, I don't see why.   Zeller's relative lack of minutes is a whole separate topic of discussion.

Is the 26 minutes at all related to being a bench player though?  Or is it that his usage rate was so high that he couldn't play more minutes at such a productive level?  I.e.  are all minutes the same?

Isaiah has started in 54% of his games and 63% of his career minutes have come as a starter.  In his starts, he has averaged 32.6 minutes.  Off the bench, he has averaged 23.1 minutes.   As a starter, his FG% is notably better (45% vs 42%) while his 3PT%, FT%, eFG% & TS% are all essentially the same or slightly better as his efficiencies off the bench.  His per-36 point-creation production is very close:

starter:  19.0 pts, 6.1 assists
reserve: 21.3 pts, 5.7 assists

This all suggests that Isaiah's just as productive as a starter as he is as a reserve.  It doesn't seem to make much difference.   Which argues for him being on the floor more often.

[nickagneta]

IT's usage rate just isn't compatible with Steven's offensive system as a starter.

On what do you base that assertion?   How does his offensive system differ for starters?

The ball has to move and everyone needs to be shooting. One player shouldn't be dominating the ball and the shooting.

What if that one player is by far the most efficient scoring option?

If you have 4 players who score at a TS% of .450 and one player who scores with an efficiency of .570, then I don't care what system you are running.  If you don't run a system that has makes far, far heavier USG of that guy than the others, then you are a terrible coach and should be fired.

I totally disagree with the idea that 'everyone needs to be shooting'.  That's a recipe for a mediocre-to-awful offense.   Oh, wait -- that's pretty much what we have had the last couple of seasons with the _exception_ of when Isaiah arrived and was on the floor.

Should Kendrick Perkins have been shooting equally as often as Pierce, Ray and KG?

I'm not saying that Isaiah should be taking every shot.  No offense is going to succeed in the long run without more than one scoring option.  Defenses will adjust and take that away, especially in the playoffs. 

So whether IT starts or not, we have to have at least a couple of others emerge who are legit scoring threats.   But that isn't likely to be "everyone" and it doesn't need to be.   Ideally, the team needs to resolve who the 2-4 most efficient scoring weapons on the team are and make sure that those guys are getting the lions share of USG.

First off, Isaiah's usage rate doesn't fit in with Stevens system because Stevens still has a system that is very college oriented and that stresses perimeter ball movement until an inside pass for a quality shot can be found, a lane can be found for a driver or an open shot shows for whoever might find themselves open. Thomas is very much a player who offensively has to have the ball stick in his hands to make him and his scoring most effective. That is most probably better for the team as a whole if he is playing with players, that as you said, have poor TS%s and most often those players are on the second team.

Second, Thomas might have a TS% of 57% but he isn't playing with players with TS%s in the 45% range. Last year, AB had a TS% of 51% and would have had a higher TS% if he just stepped out and shot more three pointers instead of long 2 pointers. His FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, and FT% are all in the same exact range as IT. Olynyk and Zeller both had +55% TS%. Turner and Sully both has TS% around 50%. Amir and Lee are also high TS% options. So IT wouldn't be starting with four guys that have TS% that were at 45%.

Third, I agree that your best scorers have to have your highest usage rates. Your argument over that is with Brad Stevens and his system and not me.

[DarkAzcura]

IT's usage rate just isn't compatible with Steven's offensive system as a starter.

On what do you base that assertion?   How does his offensive system differ for starters?

The ball has to move and everyone needs to be shooting. One player shouldn't be dominating the ball and the shooting.

What if that one player is by far the most efficient scoring option?

If you have 4 players who score at a TS% of .450 and one player who scores with an efficiency of .570, then I don't care what system you are running.  If you don't run a system that has makes far, far heavier USG of that guy than the others, then you are a terrible coach and should be fired.

I totally disagree with the idea that 'everyone needs to be shooting'.  That's a recipe for a mediocre-to-awful offense.   Oh, wait -- that's pretty much what we have had the last couple of seasons with the _exception_ of when Isaiah arrived and was on the floor.

Should Kendrick Perkins have been shooting equally as often as Pierce, Ray and KG?

I'm not saying that Isaiah should be taking every shot.  No offense is going to succeed in the long run without more than one scoring option.  Defenses will adjust and take that away, especially in the playoffs. 

So whether IT starts or not, we have to have at least a couple of others emerge who are legit scoring threats.   But that isn't likely to be "everyone" and it doesn't need to be.   Ideally, the team needs to resolve who the 2-4 most efficient scoring weapons on the team are and make sure that those guys are getting the lions share of USG.

First off, Isaiah's usage rate doesn't fit in with Stevens system because Stevens still has a system that is very college oriented and that stresses perimeter ball movement until an inside pass for a quality shot can be found, a lane can be found for a driver or an open shot shows for whoever might find themselves open. Thomas is very much a player who offensively has to have the ball stick in his hands to make him and his scoring most effective. That is most probably better for the team as a whole if he is playing with players, that as you said, have poor TS%s and most often those players are on the second team.

Second, Thomas might have a TS% of 57% but he isn't playing with players with TS%s in the 45% range. Last year, AB had a TS% of 51% and would have had a higher TS% if he just stepped out and shot more three pointers instead of long 2 pointers. His FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, and FT% are all in the same exact range as IT. Olynyk and Zeller both had +55% TS%. Turner and Sully both has TS% around 50%. Amir and Lee are also high TS% options. So IT wouldn't be starting with four guys that have TS% that were at 45%.

Third, I agree that your best scorers have to have your highest usage rates. Your argument over that is with Brad Stevens and his system and not me.

Stevens' system is not nearly that strict. He's installed a read and react system with an emphasis on ball movement, but he has said many times over that he prefers to let players play to their strengths. If IT's strengths are scoring and playing with a higher than normal usage rate then Stevens will make the adjustment as long as it helps the team (and it did last season). Stevens wasn't your typical college coach with a rigid way of doing things.

[mmmmm]

IT's usage rate just isn't compatible with Steven's offensive system as a starter.

On what do you base that assertion?   How does his offensive system differ for starters?

The ball has to move and everyone needs to be shooting. One player shouldn't be dominating the ball and the shooting.

What if that one player is by far the most efficient scoring option?

If you have 4 players who score at a TS% of .450 and one player who scores with an efficiency of .570, then I don't care what system you are running.  If you don't run a system that has makes far, far heavier USG of that guy than the others, then you are a terrible coach and should be fired.

I totally disagree with the idea that 'everyone needs to be shooting'.  That's a recipe for a mediocre-to-awful offense.   Oh, wait -- that's pretty much what we have had the last couple of seasons with the _exception_ of when Isaiah arrived and was on the floor.

Should Kendrick Perkins have been shooting equally as often as Pierce, Ray and KG?

I'm not saying that Isaiah should be taking every shot.  No offense is going to succeed in the long run without more than one scoring option.  Defenses will adjust and take that away, especially in the playoffs. 

So whether IT starts or not, we have to have at least a couple of others emerge who are legit scoring threats.   But that isn't likely to be "everyone" and it doesn't need to be.   Ideally, the team needs to resolve who the 2-4 most efficient scoring weapons on the team are and make sure that those guys are getting the lions share of USG.

First off, Isaiah's usage rate doesn't fit in with Stevens system because Stevens still has a system that is very college oriented and that stresses perimeter ball movement until an inside pass for a quality shot can be found, a lane can be found for a driver or an open shot shows for whoever might find themselves open. Thomas is very much a player who offensively has to have the ball stick in his hands to make him and his scoring most effective. That is most probably better for the team as a whole if he is playing with players, that as you said, have poor TS%s and most often those players are on the second team.

This may be what you imagine Brad's system to be, but I don't know of anything in the Read & React / Motion offensive systems that says that shots should be distributed equally among all players and not weighted heavily towards your more efficient players.

What about his system makes it bad for Isaiah to be a starter but okay as a reserve?

Second, Thomas might have a TS% of 57% but he isn't playing with players with TS%s in the 45% range. Last year, AB had a TS% of 51% and would have had a higher TS% if he just stepped out and shot more three pointers instead of long 2 pointers. His FG%, 2PT%, 3PT%, and FT% are all in the same exact range as IT. Olynyk and Zeller both had +55% TS%. Turner and Sully both has TS% around 50%. Amir and Lee are also high TS% options. So IT wouldn't be starting with four guys that have TS% that were at 45%.

Third, I agree that your best scorers have to have your highest usage rates. Your argument over that is with Brad Stevens and his system and not me.

The .450 vs .570 comparison was an illustration of a point (why an equal distribution of USG makes no sense), not an assertion about what the exact TS numbers of the Celtics were.

However, the point it illustrates is still very much valid.   Whenever you have a wide variance in efficiency, you should strive to weight your usage towards your most efficient players.  That's not always possible (the other skills of the various players may not make it easy to set them up to make scoring attempts) and certainly the efficiency of some players may not sustain with increased USG.  But nevertheless, it is a direction you need to move in or else, as I said, you will have a mediocre offense.

The TS% of the Celtics as a whole was .523, which was ranked #23 in the NBA last year.  League average was .534.

The TS% and USG% of the main rotation players on the Celtics:


Player      TS     USG%
Zeller:    .594    19.6
Thomas:    .579    32.1
Olynyk:    .558    21.1
Bass:      .557    19.5
Jerebko:   .533    17.6
Crowder:   .512    17.9
Bradley:   .507    21.0
Sullinger: .503    23.6
Smart:     .491    15.1
Turner:    .482    19.5


Looking at this, the problem wasn't that Thomas' USG was so high.  The problem I see here is that guys with low efficiency numbers at the bottom of that list have similar USG numbers to guys at the top of that list.

Saying Avery's efficiency could have been higher if only he had shot more of his shots from a stride back isn't very useful other than to hope that he will do so in the future.

It's certainly true that the Celtics did have some players who posted high TS numbers, and it is great that we are adding Lee and Amir -- they should help a LOT.  There is definitely good reason to hope that this coming season the offense will function much better.

[PhoSita]

I'm worried a lot less about IT's usage rate and a lot more about the fact that against most starting guards he gives up a ton of height and overall size and can get abused on the defensive end.

[PhoSita]

Synergy tracking numbers indicate that, while Turner ran the Pick & Roll quite often, he didn't run it particularly well.   As the ball handler on pick & roll plays, Evan managed .72 points per possession, which ranked him 41.8 percentile.

That's actually less efficient than Avery Bradley was at that play (.81 points/pos, 65.2 percentile) and miles behind Isaiah (0.94, 90.6 percentile).

His Effective Field Goal Percentage as a PNR Ballhandler was still better than Russell Westbrook, Victor Oladipo, Kyrie Irving, Mike Conley, Kemba Walker, a good number of other starting point guards.

Obviously those guys had a larger sample size, but he still had ~260 attempts, which is a lot for a non-point guard.  I don't have the number in front of me, but I'm guessing the sample size was a lot lower for Avery.

Anyway, I obviously agree that Isaiah is a far better pick and roll guy.  If we're looking for what Turner brings to the table that's better than other players on the team, it's probably a combination of competency as a pick and roll guy and as an iso guy . . . a similar profile to Isaiah, only Turner is better at defending bigger guys and worse at everything else.  Turner's not a good shooter and he's not a particularly good defender. 

Last year, at least, he was a better option running the offense than Bradley or Smart, and his size allowed him to play alongside them at the 3, even though he's a weak defender at that spot.  Hopefully the team needs him less this year, because the team would be better off not giving him the keys to the offense so often.

Looking at this, the problem wasn't that Thomas' USG was so high.  The problem I see here is that guys with low efficiency numbers at the bottom of that list have similar USG numbers to guys at the top of that list.

Very good point.  It's hard to have a very good offense with Evan Turner and Avery Bradley playing such large roles, not to mention Jared Sullinger chucking.


I'd like to see what a lineup like [Thomas - Crowder - Jerebko - Lee - Amir] could do on the offensive end.